Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Foster Demands RIAA Post $210K Security For Fees

Posted by kdawson on from the just-in-case dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A few days ago it was reported that, in view of the RIAA's one-month delay in paying the $68,685.00 attorneys fee award in Capitol v. Foster, and its lawyers' failure to respond to Ms. Foster's lawyer's email, Ms. Foster filed a motion for entry of judgment so that she could go ahead with judgment enforcement proceedings. In response to that motion the RIAA submitted a statement that it had no objection to entry of judgment, and intimated that it thought there would be an automatic stay on enforcement of the judgment, and that it would ultimately file an appeal. After seeing that, Ms. Foster's lawyer has filed a motion for the Court to require the RIAA to post $210,000 in security to cover the past and future attorneys' fees and costs that are expected to be incurred."

10 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. So Mr. Beckerman and Mr. Rogers... by djasbestos · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...how does it feel to be the most-liked lawyers in the world? Now all you have to do is kick Jack Thompson's ass and you're surely starting the lawyer hall of fame or get the Nobel Sticking-It-To-The-Man prize.

    1. Re:So Mr. Beckerman and Mr. Rogers... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So Mr. Beckerman and Mr. Rogers......how does it feel to be the most-liked lawyers in the world? Now all you have to do is kick Jack Thompson's ass and you're surely starting the lawyer hall of fame or get the Nobel Sticking-It-To-The-Man prize. Well I don't know about the rest of it, and I can't speak for Mr. Rogers, but that "Nobel Sticking-It-To-The-Man prize" would be nice.
      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  2. Not the least bit surprising ... by crackerjack911 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    With the RIAA, even if you win, you lose. Not only do they fail to pay their content creators reasonable amounts of money for their intellectual property, but they laugh in the face of the American judicial system by throwing a fit when they have to pay out a relatively small amount of money to someone for a frivolous law suit.

    --
    You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson: never try.
  3. Re:When in a hole by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When in a hole...keep digging?
    Surely it would be better for the RIAA to just pay up and stop all the publicity about the case. Of course, that probably wouldn't be the best for its lawyers, which suggests where the real balance of power lies. I wonder when the record companies' shareholders are going to come to that realization. They seem a little slow.
    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  4. Re:Within a reasonable amount of time probably by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

    Given that they are fairly stupid in these matters it wouldn't surprise me if they really do try and appeal it, mostly as a delay tactic. It also wouldn't surprise me if the net result is the judgement is upheld, and she gets more money (for the fees incurred during the appeal). Not only wouldn't it surprise me, it seems that that outcome is inevitable. The judge was brutal in cutting down Ms. Foster's fee award. I wouldn't be surprised if the cross-appeal Ms. Foster files wound up increasing the amount of the old award, and no doubt there will be another $100k or so in attorneys fees and disbursements on the appeal.
    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  5. Re:New train of thought by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm not familiar with the dates/timeline here, but in most if not all jurisdictions -- and definitely in federal court -- you have only 30 days from the entry of an order or judgment to file a notice of appeal (Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)). The order [ilrweb.com] was apparently filed on July 16. Today is August 16, which is the 31st day. BUT Foster is just now asking the court to enter judgment for this amount, which means that Capitol will probably have 30 days from the day that judgment is entered. Issue isn't time to appeal. It's time to avoid paying the judgment. Appeal doesn't stay obligation to pay the judgment. For that you have to post security.
    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  6. I think I've changed my mind by tyler.willard · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a matter of principle I pay for music. I've spent thousands of dollars over the years and that was OK with me. This was mostly to support the artists, but also because I make my money in a similar fashion.

    Now I think I should stop. I like the convenience of iTunes, so this might be difficult. But an organization like the RIAA is wholly without merit and needs to opposed; even though for me it means changing my principles.

    What about the artist's cut? I could take the easy way out and figure that it was small anyway and they were mostly getting screwed, but I think that's a facile argument. I'll simply adopt the viewpoint that you get involved with cretins like the RIAA at your own risk and by so doing I'll have no qualms stealing from you.

    1. Re:I think I've changed my mind by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 5, Funny

      My advice: download the music from p2p, and if you like it, just send the musicians fifteen bucks worth of drugs. Cut out the middlemen, so to speak.

  7. Re:Law School 101 by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is a law against frivolous appeals, and an appeal from this judgment would be frivolous. If anyone has grounds to appeal it would be Ms. Foster, who was awarded only $68,685 even though the attorneys fees and sdisbursements were around $114,000.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  8. Re:Law School 101 by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, the higher up they lose, the better the precedent will be for us. For all the other RIAA victims, the best possible scenario would be for this to go up to the Supreme Court.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful